This contribution reviews the various interpretations offered to understand the obscure pronouncement in Jer 31,22b: “A woman will encompass a man”. One of the most popular proposals, which is also the most plausible, is to regard the utterance as an example of gender role reversal. What the proponents of this viewpoint fail to demonstrate satisfactorily, however, is how this saying in Jer 31,22b relates to the multiple other ancient Near Eastern cultural contexts (literary, social-political and religious) where the same mundus inversus principle is likewise attested. It is argued that this broad backdrop is a sine qua non for the proper understanding of this enigmatic passage.

A Woman Will â€œEncompassâ€ a Man 385
The New Kingdom â€œProphecies of Nefertiâ€ paints a similar â€œinvertedâ€
world:
I show you the land in turmoil,
The weak of arm
is (now) the possessor of an arm,
One salutes him who (formerly) saluted.
I show you the lowly as superior ...
The poor man will make wealth,
The great one will (pray) to live.
The beggar will eat bread,
The slaves will be exalted.
(Lines 54-56) (34)
2. Jeremiah 30 â€“ 31 and the topos of the mundus inversus
Against this background we can now return to the Jeremiah 30â€“31. First
we look at the gender reversal pronouncement at the beginning of Jer 30 (v. 6),
where the rhetorical question is asked whether a male in times of distress
would exhibit an attitude naturally expected of a female: â€œAsk and see: can a
male bear children? Why then do I see every man with his hands on his loins
like a woman in travailâ€. Between this pronouncement and what is stated in
Jer 31,22b there is a direct connection, or to put it in the words of Sawyer:
â€œThese two verses, 30.6 and 31.22, which appear respectively at the beginning
and end of a recognized literary unit, can be understood as the counter-face of
patriarchal society where the norm is for men to dominate and women to
obeyâ€ (35). To ascribe to a male characteristics which are customarily expected
of women, therefore, would obviously have been conceived as being quite
against the normal order of things and typical of a mundus inversus order of
existence.
Compare, for example, the following prototypical expectations regarding
masculinity and femininity in an Ur III birth incantation from which it is clear
that men are generally perceived as warriors and women as the weaker sex: â€œIf
it is a male â€¦ he holds in his hand a weapon and an axe, which is his strength
of heroship. If it is a female â€¦ she holds in her hand a spindle and a decorated
combâ€ (36). One could therefore imagine that a pronouncement such as the one
in Jer 30,6, where maleness is associated with what is biologically expected of
women, would have been experienced as indeed a disgrace or a deadly curse.
There are several more examples elsewhere in the ancient Near East
where similar feminine qualities are assigned to men and many of them have
their origin in curses. The following stereotypical pronouncements clearly
betray that to be womanlike implies to be weak.
The first one stems from a Hittite self-maledictory oath where the
following threat is made: â€œWhoever breaks these oaths â€¦ let these oaths
change him from a man to a woman! Let them change his troops into women,
(34) The translation is by SHUPAK, â€œThe Prophecies of Nefertiâ€, The Context of
Scripture (ed. W.H. HALLO, et al.) I, 109.
(35) SAWYER, â€œGender-Play and Sacred Textâ€, 104.
(36) ASHER-GREVE, â€œDecisive Sex, Essential Gender,â€ 13.